Securency air begins to clear

A so-called 'super injunction' relating to criminal matters involving Securency, Note Printing Australia and the Reserve Bank of Australia has been discontinued, inviting wider comment on a notorious case of alleged industry corruption.

Justice Jane Hollingworth in the Supreme Court of Victoria last month ruled that she was "not persuaded that the continuation of the order is necessary or desirable."

Wikileaks produced widespread knowledge of the suppression order, with its version of the outline widely reported and commented on through many forms of media.

Hollingworth put her insider view of the affair.

"The DFAT order does not prevent the publication of 'any information relating to the court case', nor does it ensure 'compete secrecy' around the case. It is not a 'blanket' suppression order," she said.

"The DFAT order does not prohibit publication of the existence of the order. Nor does it prevent publication of the terms of the DFAT order, except in so far as those terms would reveal the suppressed information."

Engaging with media's spin on things the judge observed: "The label 'super-injunction' is not a legal term of art, and was unknown in the UK or Australia until around 2010. It is not a term that has been used with precision by the media or legal commentators.

"The DFAT order is not a super-injunction; it does not prohibit publication of the existence of the order, nor of the foreign bribery proceedings."

Wikileaks did, however, foster knowledge of the multitude of Asian political figures said to be connected to the Securency case.

Naming any of these remains problematic for an Australian trade publication.